On 15/03/2022 19:51, Pankaj Raghav wrote: >> ck-groups (and thus block-groups not aligned to the stripe size). >> > I agree with your point that we risk not aligning to stripe size when we > move to npo2 zone size which I believe the minimum is 64K (please > correct me if I am wrong). As David Sterba mentioned in his email, we > could agree on some reasonable alignment, which I believe would be the > minimum stripe size of 64k to avoid added complexity to the existing > btrfs zoned support. And it is a much milder constraint that most > devices can naturally adhere compared to the po2 zone size requirement. > What could be done is rounding a zone down to the next po2 (64k aligned), but then we need to explicitly finish the zones.
